P (PLP)

(a) correct any clerical or arithmetical error in the list ; (b) correct any erroneous insertions or omissions or any mis-descriptions ; (c) make such additions to or corrections in the list as appear to the authority to be necessary by reason of‑ (i) a new building being erected after the completion of the valuation list ; (ii) a building included in the valuation list being destroyed or substantially damaged or altered since its value was last previ ously determined ; (iii) any change in the ownership of any building or land ; This is a proviso with which we are not concerned. Some time in 1941, a valuation list was made under section 7 (1) by Mr. Taylor as assessing authority. Objections were invited and heard and the list became final and operative from the 1st of October 1941. Now, although the notice, of which Exh. P. 3 is a copy, purports to have caused a draft valuation list of all build ings and lands within the limits of the Lahore rating area, it appears that in actual fact lands were inadvertently excluded from it. On the 12th of January 1942, therefore, the Government notified an other assessing authority, namely, Khan Bahadur Sheikh Shah Nawaz, who prepared a fresh list, this time covering agricultural land only, and, going through all the formalities of inviting and hearing objections, made the list operative from the 1st of April 1942. As a result of the preparation of this list, Khan Bahadur Mian Amir‑ud‑Din plaintiff and seven of his relatives were called upon to pay a tax of Rs. 1,652 for the years 1945‑46 and Rs. 4,901 14‑0 as arrears for the preceding three years. The plaintiffs there upon brought a suit for a declaration that a new list could not be prepared under section 7 of the Act and the first two Courts have found in their favour. The issues in the case were: (1) Was the valuation list in dispute duly made by competent authority? (2) Was the valuation list in dispute illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires for reasons mentioned in the plaint ; if so, what is the effect ? (3) If issue No. 1 be proved, has this Court no jurisdiction to try this/suit? The first two issues cover the same subject‑matter. It will be seen from section 7 that a second valuation list can not be made until the expiration of five years from the date when the first list becomes operative and that Government can extend this period by six months or reduce it by a year but that, in the absence of such extension or reduction, the list prepared under section 7 shall remain in force until it is superseded by a mew list. If therefore the list prepared by Khan Bahadur Sheikh Shah Nawaz is a new list, then, since five years have not elapsed from the date of Mr. Taylor's list, the new list is unauthorised by section

7. Learned counsel for the Government, however, argued that this list merely supplemented Mr. Taylor's list, which was incomplete, because it did not cover the entire rating 'area. This argument, if carried to its logical conclusion, would enable the preparation of a supplementary list, even if a single house or site is inadvertently omitted from the original list. Such procedure would necessarily entail an amendment of the list for which section 9 makes the only provision, and, as section 9 is clear enough in its terms, it cannot be argued with any reason that, apart from section 9, there is implicit in the language of section 7 a provision for the amendment of the list. That Mr. Taylor did not intend to leave out agricultural land for a supplementary list is clear from the opening, paragraph of the notice Ex. P. 3 which, as already pointed out, purports to notify a valuation list of buildings and lands". That Khan Bahadur Sheikh Shah Nawaz did not intend to make a supplementary list is clear from the procedure which he adopted and, which was in all details, the procedure prescribed for the preparation of a new list under section 7 and the rules made under the Act. It is true that 'the new list was intended to be supplementary and was in no sense meant to supersede the first list. The best, however, that could be said for it is that it was merely an amend ment of the list and that the prohibitive provisions of section 7 are not attracted to it. In that case the question would be whether it was such amendment as was contemplated by section

9. Learned counsel for the Crown agreed that it was not an amendment which was covered by clauses (a), (b) or (e) of that section, but maintained that it was covered by the first part of the section. In other words, it was such amendment as appeared to the assessing authority necessary "in order to bring the list into accord with existing circumstances". , It is hardly, conceivable that an amendment intended to make up for an omission can have the effect of bringing the list into accord with the existing circum stances. The intention of this part of the section appears to be to meet altered conditions such as may arise from the addition of an entire estate to the limits of the Corporation. I would, therefore hold that the present list is not amendment of the original list under section

9. The next point argued was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in this case. Under section 23 of the Act jurisdiction is barred "in any matter if the Provincial Government or an assess ing authority or any officer or servant is empowered by this Act or the rules made thereunder to dispose of", and tt is argued that the plaintiffs could have obtained redress under section 10 by appeal and revision from the order of the assessing authority or by filing an obje ction to the draft valuation list under section

8. These objections are limited to the wording of subsection (2) of section 8 which is as follows :‑ "Any person aggrieved by any entry in the draft valuation list or by the insertion therein or omission therefrom of any matter of otherwise with respect to the list, may in accordance with rules made under the Act lode an objection with the assessing authority .." It was argued that, since the plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the fact that their names were entered in the draft valuation list, they could file an objection with the assessing authority and, if the objection had been dismissed, appeal to the Collector and take a revision to the Commissioner. The objection of the plaintiff's, however, is not that their names have been entered in a validly prepared list under section 7, but that a list could not be prepared validly under that section, and that is not an objection which is covered by subsection‑(2). It is, therefore, not a matter which the assessing authority or the appellate or the revisional authorities have been empowered by the Act to dispose of and is consequently left to the Civil Court for decision. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Learned counsel for the Crown has prayed for permission to be granted for the lodging of a Letters Patent appeal. The point of law involved is simple but, as it is a matter of importance for public revenues, I grant the necessary permission. K.M.A/A.H Appeal dismissed.